Article View: sci.physics
Article #16006Re: A second "big bang"
From: Ole D. Rughede
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:56
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:56
49 lines
3514 bytes
3514 bytes
In <e58d56ae.0302041421.1a0f6391@posting.google.com>, whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes: >Green Dehydrated Amphibian <GDA@dragon.ch> wrote: >> 1915: Albert Einstein proposes the theory of general relativity, which >> equates gravity to the curvature of space-time. > >Technically, this is not what General Relativity does. You can >also equate gravity with the curvature of space-time in Newtonian >Physics. The structure is different: a 1-dimensional fibre bundle >with a 3-dimensional fibre. > >What distinguishes General Relativity is NOT that it unifies >gravity and space-time curvature (since the unification is also >done with Newtonian gravity), but that it unifies it in the >setting of a Lorentzian manifold. > >Even more to the point: even in Newtonian Physics, there will >still be a Big Bang Universe. > >The existence of a Big Bang universe has nothing per se to do >with Relativity. It comes from the simple logic of answering >the childhood question "why doesn't everything fall to the ground?" >(which, in adult terms, is rendered as "why doesn't everything >fall into each other?"). > >No matter where you start or what point of view you take, there >are only 4 alternatives. Either > (1) Everything IS falling into each other (or is about to > start doing so) > (2) Everything is flying apart from one another > (3) Everything is in universal rotation >or > (4) Gravity behaves different at long distances. > >Not(4) implies (1) or (2) or (3). Not (4) and not (3) imply (1) or (2). >And not (4), not (3) and not (2) imply (1). Where to should everything be falling, flying, or rotating as the result of some big bang, - or to enable some big bang? Which kind of logic correlates "everything" or "the movement of everything" with the idea of a "big bang"? - Some war-movies? Childish observation of a seagull's droppings in free fall? Are we talking about an im- or exploding "big bang", or perhaps about several minor/major/average such or what "bangs" created by which great bang-man? Ole D. Rughede
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3e7c4f5e$0$119$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!not-for-mailReferences:
<b1njmo$bsd$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> <3E3F6FB9.6020303@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> <xaK%9.26458$ZE1.557225@news1.nokia.com> <3E3F79EB.8F5B1796@nic.or.kr> <e58d56ae.0302041421.1a0f6391@posting.google.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10384c,830f5d0cde7d55f X-Google-Attributes: gid10384c,public X-Google-Thread: f74ae,3df8337c8f392688 X-Google-Attributes: gidf74ae,public X-Google-Thread: 10f545,3df8337c8f392688 X-Google-Attributes: gid10f545,public X-Google-Thread: 10b271,5ef568b8af139a7,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10b271,public X-Google-Thread: 111645,3df8337c8f392688 X-Google-Attributes: gid111645,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-22 03:56:14 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!not-for-mail Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,fr.sci.astrophysique,alt.alien.visitors From: ole.rughede@privat.dk (Ole D. Rughede) Subject: Re: A second "big bang" Reply-To: ole.rughede@privat.dk Organization: IBM TCP/IP for OS/2 RTP, NC References: <b1njmo$bsd$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> <3E3F6FB9.6020303@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> <xaK%9.26458$ZE1.557225@news1.nokia.com> <3E3F79EB.8F5B1796@nic.or.kr> <e58d56ae.0302041421.1a0f6391@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Distribution: world Date: 22 Mar 2003 11:56:14 GMT Lines: 50 Message-ID: <3e7c4f5e$0$119$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.163.17.43 X-Trace: 1048334174 dtext02.news.tele.dk 119 80.163.17.43 X-Complaints-To: abuse@post.tele.dk